ripped through 3 standard legal pads of notes. came to understandings only to have them totally demolished by Kant's next train of thought. I think the point he's trying to make (amongst many) is not that our reactions to great works of art are completely subjective (because they are), but that the fact that is is not subjective that all humans have the capacity to experience art and be moved in ways which we don't understand.

Because the purposiveness under a reflective judgement doesn't give primacy to a kind of concept that exists outside of humans, we are arguing that these things exist in relation to the human cognition of such. So we can find a kind of universal truth of a thing not in itself but in its connection to us having a connection to the thing (LOL) Our faculties allow us a capacity to recognize, acknowledge, and experience things on a level that transcends our animals appetite.